Santorum: My 12-year-old will out-reason Bill Maher

posted at 1:20 pm on March 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Santorum, a devout Catholic, said on Fox News that “folks on the left” are out there “trashing anybody who stands up for Christian conservative values, anybody who dares to actually teach their children faith in their home.” …

“All of a sudden, if you’re instilling faith and teaching them about God in your home, you’re a Madrassa, according to these folks, as if reason doesn’t take place in these homes,” Santorum said.

The candidate then argued his son, one of seven children, could take on Maher.

How I’d love to see a middle-schooler debate Bill Maher! At the same time, Santorum’s mention of his 12-year-old son reminds me: How is it Maher got away with attacking Santorum’s parenting? Aren’t presidential children — or potential presidential children — and everything that concerns them usually off-limits? Michelle O’s primary goal as First Lady seems to be to protect Malia and Sasha from the press — and I can’t blame her. Chelsea Clinton was so sheltered and secluded as the First Kid that she might have been imaginary but for photographic evidence.

While I can’t blame Santorum for responding — and I’m grateful he did — I hope his response doesn’t embolden or empower Maher or anyone else to think that the decisions candidates make concerning their children are especially relevant to a campaign or election. Except as a piece of the overall character puzzle, it’s hard for me to see why they would be (unless they’re illegal). Most parents — including politicians — are just doing what they think is best for their children, and, again, unless they’re doing something illegal or are completely negligent, deserve to be given that consideration.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I am claiming that exercising freedom does not end in losing freedom. What you consider “power/capability” and “hedonism/pleasure” I have no idea, but no, one freedom does not cost another freedom.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM

So someone exercising their freedom to murder you would not cost you your liberties?

listens2glenn is right. Certain lines should never be crossed even if they do appear to grant more freedom, because ultimately they actually cost us our freedom. One specific example I would use is polygamy. We can argue about what lines we should never cross, but it should be painfully obvious to anyone that many of our freedoms are restricted to protect our liberties in general.

That’s a cheap excuse. All the candidates of ALL parties shouldn’t have to hide their families away and pretend they don’t exist because idiots like Maher can’t control themselves.

It didn’t bother me when Palin hauled Trig around and it didn’t bother me when Obama mentioned his kid telling him to “plug the hole”.

How come we can’t be a little more sophisticated or intelligent to refrain from smacking people’s families around?

kim roy on March 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Excuse? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. No one is suggesting Santorum hide his family away, but when a candidate inserts his family into a story or into a discussion, then it is acceptable to discuss it. Santorum should’ve known better.

I have no idea why you can’t be more sophisticated or intelligent in refraining from smacking people’s families around. Only you can answer that.

Most parents — including politicians — are just doing what they think is best for their children, and, again, unless they’re doing something illegal or are completely negligent, deserve to be given that consideration.

It seems that Big O has his cake and eats it too when it comes to his kids. He can reference them in the Sandra Fluke controversy but the press can’t. He can say NO to DC Vouchers and send thousands of kids back into failing public schools but we cant bring up the fact that his Kids get an Ivory Tower Education.

I think this is wrong, if he or his wife use the kids at opportune times for their political purposes or if they deny someone a benefit but make sure their kids have it, then they have taken the gloves off. His kids are political pawns in HIS White House and Obama should make them off limits in everything or give the press license to politicize his family the way he does.

Are you claiming that the “hedonism/pleasure freedoms” aren’t costing us the “power/capability freedoms”?
.
I believe I can make the argument that they are.

listens2glenn on March 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I am claiming that exercising freedom does not end in losing freedom. What you consider “power/capability” and “hedonism/pleasure” I have no idea, but no, one freedom does not cost another freedom.Dante on March 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM

.
Just to pick an easy example; we HAVE lost Second Amendment rights due to irresponsibility by hedonists with guns.
(I am NOT counting assasination attempts, in that)

Just to pick an easy example; we HAVE lost Second Amendment rights due to irresponsibility by hedonists with guns.
(I am NOT counting assasination attempts, in that)

listens2glenn on March 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM

We have not. Bearing arms (self defense) is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away. The Second Amendment, which protects a right, not grants a right, has not been removed from the Constitution.

Besides, I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding hedonists. Try to be specific.

I most certainly do. It is you who fails to recognize the fact that we limit liberties in order to also preserve them. Even free speech has its limits.

NotCoach on March 13, 2012 at 2:51 PM

No, it’s pretty clear you don’t if you think someone has the freedom or right to murder someone else.

And I recognize that people desire to limit freedom (there’s a host of them who comment here), but limiting freedom and putting it in shackles does not protect freedom. On the contrary. Exercising freedoms protect freedoms.

No, it’s pretty clear you don’t if you think someone has the freedom or right to murder someone else.

And I recognize that people desire to limit freedom (there’s a host of them who comment here), but limiting freedom and putting it in shackles does not protect freedom. On the contrary. Exercising freedoms protect freedoms.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Why is it we don’t have the freedom to murder someone else? Clearly this is a difficult concept for you, so I guess we need to take things slow.

Excuse? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. No one is suggesting Santorum hide his family away, but when a candidate inserts his family into a story or into a discussion, then it is acceptable to discuss it. Santorum should’ve known better.

I have no idea why you can’t be more sophisticated or intelligent in refraining from smacking people’s families around. Only you can answer that.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Of course that’s what it means. Santorum didn’t start it, but don’t let that get in the way of any argument you may have.

Having said that, even if Santorum did start it, my point remains – have we become so uncivilized that it’s okay to beat a candidate’s family up? Or does said candidate have to pretend his/her family doesn’t exist because some doof can’t control himself.

You are arguing that if Santorum is silly enough to mention his family that it’s open season on them.

Fair enough, but let’s be honest here. You have no standards and that’s fine – just don’t pretend you do.

You are arguing that if Santorum is silly enough to mention his family that it’s open season on them.

kim roy on March 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

No, that is not what I have argued. I said nothing about open season. I said if a politician/candidate is going to insert his family into a discussion, then it is legitimate to discuss them in context of the subject.

Your argument is similar to people who attacked Limbaugh for criticizing Michael J. Fox.

No, that is what you are saying. You don’t speak for me, and you kindly won’t put words in my mouth. Try to have some respect, especially when you are trying to lecture someone about respect.

I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m simply stating that you’re implying that you agree with Maher.

I don’t need to go after Obama’s children and I would attack anybody who felt that, as you say, it’s “acceptable to discuss it.” I want Obama out, his daughters are out of bounds as far as I’m concerned.

You find it acceptable because you agree with Maher and you’re looking for an acceptable excuse. If you don’t agree then shut your f*cking pie hole for a change on this subject. The more you try to discuss it the more you’re proving that you’re a liar.

“William “Bill” Maher, Jr. (play /ˈmɑːr/; born January 20, 1956) is an American stand-up comedian………..”

liberal4life on March 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM

So?

I’ve seen so-called artwork from “artists” that look so bad, I wouldn’t buy one for $2.00.

Maher can claim that he’s a comedian but he needs to go the “insulting” route because he has no talent. Any idiot can insult someone’s wife and children, it takes talent to think of real comedy material.

That question is really that difficult to answer? OK, let me be more specific. Why is murder illegal? As someone obsessed with wanting to legalize everything, why not murder? What right does the state have to deny me the freedom to murder? And how might denying me that freedom actually protect liberty? After all, I am being denied a freedom so how exactly am I more free because that freedom is being denied?

Does Bill Maher not know what a madrassa is? Does he ever refer to Muslim cathedrals? And what’s so bad about one since Barry spent a good chunk of his childhood in one. Are saying Barry was indoctrinated Bill?

That question is really that difficult to answer? OK, let me be more specific. Why is murder illegal? As someone obsessed with wanting to legalize everything, why not murder? What right does the state have to deny me the freedom to murder? And how might denying me that freedom actually protect liberty? After all, I am being denied a freedom so how exactly am I more free because that freedom is being denied?

NotCoach on March 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM

You keep proving you don’t understand what natural rights are, and your use of the word “illegal” is another dead giveaway. Focus on the word “natural”.

If you wish to refuse to engage and address the legitimate points that listens2glenn or I brought up, so be it. But pretending to sound smart usually doesn’t make a person look very smart.

NotCoach on March 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Neither one of you has presented a legitimate point. There can be no discussion when you claim to understand natural rights and liberty, and insist that you do understand them, but then prove that you don’t in each of your posts.

That doesn’t make any sense, just so you know, but I’m fascinated to know how you tie this into the Second Amendment and how you think we’ve lost that inalienable right to self defense.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

.
I can’t argue whether or not my definition of hedonism “makes sense” to you, as some things will always be (or fail to be) “in the eyes of the beholder”.
.
Hedonism as I defined it above, is ‘irresponsible’.

Even if you can prove you have a “designated driver”, there’s no such thing as responsible hedonism.

Responsibility, and hedonism are “mutually exclusive”.
.
Would anyone (not just Dante) like to refute that statement?

If not . . . then do I still need to show you how this ties in with the Second Amendment?

Neither one of you has presented a legitimate point. There can be no discussion when you claim to understand natural rights and liberty, and insist that you do understand them, but then prove that you don’t in each of your posts.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

.
I’d say the Declaration Of Independence rejects the premise of “Natural Rights”.

Just when I thought Maher couldn’t go any deeper into the gutter, he once again, sets new levels of outrageous demagogory.

Maher is a pig, with no humanity, none..

You can make all kinds of excuses, but either kids are off limits, all of them, or none are. How can anyone justiffy what Maher said, them get popeyed crazy if someone suggests Obama is a lousey parent?

I’d love to see that kind of hypocrisy explained away. Rather, see some one attempt to,..

Santorum didn’t make his children a target by mentioning them, unless you can explain how Obama and Romney haven’t just by mentioning theirs.

It’s defending the indefensible, the smirk just makes it even more hateful.

Only if there is a safety barrier between them. I can see Maher getting frustrated as he’s being embarrassed by the 12-year-old and lashing out with his fists. Then again, the 12-year-old could probably thrash Bill “Beta” Maher in a fight as well as a debate.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

.
I’ll have to take it that this is where you draw the premise of Natural Law from.

I would submit to you that Thomas Jefferson (and the rest of the Founding Fathers) believed that Nature’s Law derived from God’s Law and that there was no contradiction between them.

And the Founding Fathers defined God’s Law with that document called the Holy Bible.

Ergo, there is no different/separate set of laws that the Founding Fathers gave recognition to besides God’s Law, as they saw it in the Bible.
.
I’m not right about everything (or even most things, for that matter), but I do believe I’ve got this right.

No, that is not what I have argued. I said nothing about open season. I said if a politician/candidate is going to insert his family into a discussion, then it is legitimate to discuss them in context of the subject.

Your argument is similar to people who attacked Limbaugh for criticizing Michael J. Fox.

Of course it is. Santorum is the one who foolishly brought it up and inserted his kid into the conversation. It’s completely fair to comment on and discuss the subject.

Dante on March 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Excuse? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. No one is suggesting Santorum hide his family away, but when a candidate inserts his family into a story or into a discussion, then it is acceptable to discuss it. Santorum should’ve known better.

if the debate topic was religion the 12 year old would definitely lose but every christian would just say he won so whats the point? optimal approach to christians is just not to engage and wait for them to die off.

The main reason people home school their children is beause the liberal run public school systems in this country turn out idiots for graduates. Thanks in particular to the teacher’s unions, the kids learn nothing except liberal dogma and multiculturism. Incompetent teachers are kept on forever due to tenure and bright, new teachers are the first to be fired when cutbacks are necessary.

If you don’t believe that, check out any of the international tests that are givent to high school graduates. The united states always ranks at or near the bottom of the tests given to children from the OECD countries.

If I had children today, I would seriously consider home scvhooling, not for religious reasons, but to give my kid a better chance in life.